About this Research Topic
Minimally invasive surgical techniques such as laparoscopy and robotics have revolutionized the treatment of urologic diseases, standing at the vanguard of strategies for managing both malignant and benign disorders. The majority of these procedures utilize a transperitoneal approach because it provides familiar landmarks and a larger workspace. However, despite its relevance to the field of urology, the retroperitoneal approach remains underutilized largely due to challenges like unfamiliar anatomical landmarks, restricted working space, and orientation difficulties that may lead to surgeon disorientation.
This Research Topic aims to thoroughly examine the relative merits and drawbacks of extra- and retroperitoneal approaches in minimally invasive urologic surgery. Specifically, it intends to determine whether the less commonly used retroperitoneal approach is indeed as effective as the transperitoneal method, addressing a significant gap in the current scientific literature characterized by a lack of rigorous comparisons between these two techniques.
To gather further insights into this area of surgical practice, we welcome articles addressing, but not limited to, the following themes:
- Comparative outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches.
- Anatomical challenges and solutions in retroperitoneal surgery.
- Learning curve and surgeon adaptation to extra-peritoneal techniques.
- Patient morbidity and recovery comparisons.
- Functional outcomes of urologic surgeries using different approaches.
Manuscripts consisting solely of bioinformatics, computational analysis, or predictions of public databases which are not accompanied by validation (independent clinical or patient cohort, or biological validation in vitro or in vivo, which are not based on public databases) are not suitable for publication in this Research Topic.
This Research Topic aims to thoroughly examine the relative merits and drawbacks of extra- and retroperitoneal approaches in minimally invasive urologic surgery. Specifically, it intends to determine whether the less commonly used retroperitoneal approach is indeed as effective as the transperitoneal method, addressing a significant gap in the current scientific literature characterized by a lack of rigorous comparisons between these two techniques.
To gather further insights into this area of surgical practice, we welcome articles addressing, but not limited to, the following themes:
- Comparative outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches.
- Anatomical challenges and solutions in retroperitoneal surgery.
- Learning curve and surgeon adaptation to extra-peritoneal techniques.
- Patient morbidity and recovery comparisons.
- Functional outcomes of urologic surgeries using different approaches.
Manuscripts consisting solely of bioinformatics, computational analysis, or predictions of public databases which are not accompanied by validation (independent clinical or patient cohort, or biological validation in vitro or in vivo, which are not based on public databases) are not suitable for publication in this Research Topic.
Keywords: Urological Surgery, retroperitoneal approach, retroperitoneal surgery
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
